> On Feb 11, 2019, at 6:33 AM, Peter da Silva <res...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I am pretty sure that the code is not legal C because it's using the return > value of a void function, as well as returning a value from a void > function. Compilers that "do what I mean" and accept it are in error. It's > certainly possible that some obscure clause in some C standard blesses it > but I can't imagine why they would.
I would need to dig through the relevant Standards to confirm, but my memory was that C++ added this feature to help with templates (you might have a template where the return value was templates on type, so return <void expression> was a logical possibility). C did not need this, so didn’t adopt it (though possible some later version did for compatibility). Many C Compilers are also C++.Compilers and often accept code that uses features of one language that aren’t in the other as an extension, generating a warning only if a ‘be fussy’ flag is set. (Few compilers are fully conforming to the Standard by default). Even if this was adopted by C in some later Standard, the use of this syntax would be a needless requirement for a much later version of the Standard than would otherwise be needed. _______________________________________________ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
